Trump’s Phony Religious Liberty EO

If you are a preacher eager to politicize your pulpit and make yourself useful to Washington power brokers, President Trump is on your side. Because when you think “defending religious liberty,” the first thing that comes to mind is making America safe for political fundraising and advocacy. Right?

President Trump on Thursday said he would direct the Internal Revenue Service to relax enforcement of rules barring tax-exempt churches from participating in politics as part of a much-anticipated executive order on religious liberties.

The order — which Trump formally unveiled in a Rose Garden ceremony with Christian leaders — also offers unspecified “regulatory relief” for religious objectors to an Obama administration mandate, already scaled back by the courts, that required contraception services as part of health plans, the officials said.

“For too long the federal government has used the state as a weapon against people of faith,” Trump said, later telling the religious leaders gathered for the event that “you’re now in a position to say what you want to say … No one should be censoring sermons or targeting pastors.”

But the sweep of the order — unveiled on a National Day of Prayer — was significantly narrower than a February draft, which had alarmed civil libertarians, gay rights and other liberal advocacy groups and prompted threats of lawsuits.

Among other things, that version included a controversial provision that could have allowed federal contractors to discriminate against LGBT employees or single mothers on the basis of faith.

The order released Thursday instead included a blanket statement that “it is the policy of the administration to protect and vigorously promote religious liberty.”

While Trump’s action was applauded by many in the Rose Garden, some religious groups criticized him for what they characterized as a vague directive that didn’t live up to his campaign rhetoric.

“We strongly encourage the president to see his campaign promise through to completion and to ensure that all Americans — no matter where they live or what their occupation is — enjoy the freedom to peacefully live and work consistent with their convictions without fear of government punishment,” said Gregory S. Baylor, senior counsel for the pro-faith group Alliance Defending Freedom.

Note well that ADF is also opposed to the Johnson Amendment. But ADF also knows that repealing it is very far from the most pressing religious liberty needs. More from the WaPo:

Until Trump elevated it during his campaign, the Johnson Amendment was rarely a top priority for advocates of religious liberty. In fact, some faith groups have said they strongly support the amendment that Trump is weakening. Requiring churches to stay out of politics, they say, is key to separating church and state.

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, a leading faith-based group focused on religious freedom, has said it supports the Johnson Amendment, because keeping politics and religion separate is best for religion.

I agree! I understand that the Johnson Amendment has rarely been enforced, but it’s still an important law to have in place, not so much (from my point of view) to protect that state, but rather to protect the church and its mission.

“Trump seems to have a fixation on the Johnson Amendment, but thatʼs not the concern of people who have been talking about religious liberty for the past several years,” [the Heritage Foundation’s Ryan T.] Anderson said.

Or take the “regulatory relief” for religious organizations that object to Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate. Lawyers from Becket, the religious-liberty law firm that led the most high-profile court challenge on behalf of a group of Catholic nuns called the Little Sisters of the Poor, were happy that the administration addressed the case: “We’re encouraged by the promise of protection for the Little Sisters coming from the White House,” wrote Mark Rienzi in an emailed statement. And yet, last spring, the Supreme Court already ordered the Obama administration to work with religious non-profits to find a resolution. The executive order “may very well simply be, ‘Yeah, you have to do it, because SCOTUS told you to do it,’ which doesn’t move the ball,” said Anderson.

More:

Tim Schultz, the president of the First Amendment Partnership, which works with legislators at the state and national level on religious-liberty issues, said the conservative reaction to the order would be mixed, especially because it leaves out protections for those who object to same-sex marriage. “Many will be disappointed that this signals a lack of will by the administration to expend political capital in this context,” he wrote in an email on Thursday morning. “Others want to see this addressed with great political care … and they will see an opportunity in this omission.” On the Johnson Amendment guidance, he wrote that “there could well be unintended consequences that are bad for faith communities.” This might include the further politicization of houses of worship or the flow of lobbying dollars into religious organizations.

Yes, yes, yes. Here is the full text of the EO, via the White House website. It has nothing — zip, nada — to protect the religious liberty of people who dissent from LGBT rights dogmas, and regarding the contraception mandate, it directs Treasury, Labor, and HHS to “consider” — that’s a quote — issuing amended regulations that are more respectful of religious liberty.

Consider. There’s your brave defender, Little Sisters of the Poor.

This is not nothing, but it’s next to nothing. The only thing of substance in this thing is that the president wants to free preachers up to raise money for him from the pulpit. He can’t actually do this except by Congress changing the law to repeal the Johnson Amendment. So he’s ordering the executive branch not to enforce it — this, even though it has been rarely enforced in the first place!

Religious conservatives, we’ve been had. Who can plausibly deny it now?

Nobody is going after Catholic hospitals, Southern Baptist florists, Christian colleges, and others over their preaching the GOP gospel from the pulpit. It costs Trump exactly nothing in terms of political capital to do what he’s done. On the points where it might have cost him, he whiffed. President Jared wins again.

Trump’s election was about correcting problems of the last administration, including religious liberty violations and the hostility to people of faith in the United States. This order does not do that. It is a mere shadow of the original draft leaked in February.

More:

All Americans should remain free to worship God, serve the poor, educate the next generation, and run a business, all in accordance with their religious beliefs—whatever those religious beliefs happen to be. We should all be subject to the same legal standard: Government can only substantially burden the free exercise of religion if it is acting to advance a compelling government interest pursued in the least restrictive way possible.

Media reports from Tuesday said that today’s executive order was going to provide meaningful protections: “one influential conservative who saw the text said it hasn’t been dialed back much—if at all—since the February leak. ‘The language is very, very strong,’ the source said.”

In reality, what Trump issued today is rather weak. All it includes is general language about the importance of religious liberty, saying the executive branch “will honor and enforce” existing laws and instructing the Department of Justice to “issue guidance” on existing law; directives to the Department of the Treasury to be lenient in the enforcement of the Johnson Amendment; and directives to the secretaries of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services (HHS) to “consider issuing amended regulations” to “address conscience-based objections” to the HHS contraception mandate.

It’s all for show. All of you pastors and religious leaders who dignified this with your presence last night at the White House dinner, and in the Rose Garden today, understand that you were all turned into political props by Trump.

“I think evangelicals have found their dream president,” said Jerry Falwell Jr., president of Liberty University — where Trump will give a commencement address on May 13. “I’ve never seen a White House have such a close relationship with faith leaders than this one.”

If by “faith leaders,” you mean highly politicized conservative white Evangelicals, okay. But the cost that sucking at the Trump power tweet is going to exact to the spiritual and moral credibility of these ministries is going to be massive. Watch and see. Ladies and gentlemen, this may well be your “but for Wales?” moment.

I cannot state it strongly enough to my fellow conservative Christians: I do not believe that either this Republican president or this Republican Party will stand up for us in a meaningful way, not when it might cost them. You can blame this on the gutlessness of the GOP, and I wouldn’t argue with you, but you should also recognize that this is a sign of the times. As political scientist Carson Holloway wrote last year in First Things:

The public principles religious conservatives hold most dear—the integrity of the family, respect for innocent human life, the flourishing of religious belief and its influence on the culture—are vital to the health of our society. Religious conservatives are therefore bound, out of love of neighbor and love of country, to promote these principles. And since we live in a democracy and have the freedom to be active in politics, we are bound to promote these principles by political action.

If we are to be involved in politics, we have to approach it with a proper realism. The things we care most deeply about, while essential to the health of our society, are not politically compelling to a majority of voters. No political party could win national elections in America by campaigning only on respect for life, for the integrity of the family, and for the positive role of religion in our culture.

If religious conservatives seek to promote these principles through political action, they will have to join in a larger political coalition, one that also emphasizes other issues and represents other interests. At least, such alliances are necessary if our political activism seeks to win elections—if it aims at putting together an actual governing coalition, and is not content merely to be a form of moral expression.

This is a rationale for realism and compromise — even compromise with the likes of Trump. After all, as feeble as today’s EO is, we would have seen active attacks on religious liberty by President Hillary Clinton. If Trump is doing no good for us, at least he’s not doing active harm. There’s something to be said for that. I’m not kidding.

But look, conservative Christians, let’s be honest with ourselves: our day is done. The things that define us politically — sanctity of life, freedom of religious conscience, protection of traditional marriage and the traditional family — are things that are no longer broadly popular with the American people. We cannot expect many political victories anymore. This is not to say that we should stop fighting for them, but let us be realistic about what we can expect, and let us prepare ourselves for living faithfully and sacrificially in a post-Christian nation. That’s not sexy, and it’s not going to get us invitations to political pantomimes in the Rose Garden. But it has the virtue of being real.

Finally, this:

But I guess good news is that when the ACLU shuts down Catholic hospitals in 15 yrs, priests will be free to endorse Ivanka from the pulpit.

Again, they are upset that Trump deprived them of an opportunity for a publicity-generating (and thus donation-generating) lawsuit…

That’s conjectural Noah. I don’t have much respect for the ACLU. I once received an unsolicited offer of membership. I wrote back that when the ACLU apologizes for the trial and expulsion of a founding board member, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, I will give their invitation some consideration. But on its face, the ACLU simply said, nothing of substance here, let’s look for something useful to do.

Main point: Had the situation been reversed you would not have regretted your vote for Clinton no matter what argument was made, because the alternative was Trump. Please stop expecting people who are on the other side to feel differently.

I think that’s about right. When the unexpected happened and Trump was elected, a lot of pundits fell over themselves to mourn in ostentatious middle eastern style, and forgot how real this sentiment was: “Hell no, DNC, we won’t vote for Hillary.”

Sure they don’t have any loyalty to the Democrat party, but you all seem very very loyal to them. That’s a problem.

I don’t know about Berkeley, but the city’s Democratic establishment here in Portland has routinely been cracking the heads of the antifas/black-bloc, and the latter have been busy trying to disrupt City Council meetings and other city business.

Main point: Had the situation been reversed you would not have regretted your vote for Clinton no matter what argument was made, because the alternative was Trump. Please stop expecting people who are on the other side to feel differently.

Perhaps, depends on what Clinton did. I suspect the saving grace in both cases is that either is not likely to go down in history as a good or effective President, albeit for different reasons. Trump is simply not up to the job, for many reasons having to do with his personality. Clinton is mentally stable, knowledgable, and intelligent, but was a fan of numerous bad policies, and likely would have been hamstrung by a hostile Congress (again particularly on the domestic front).

OTOH, we might have gotten a better SCOTUS justice than Gorsuch out of her–or perhaps she might have surprised us.

At any rate, the Trump administration could well have been far worse than it has been so far. This is not praise for the Donald; merely an observation that his effectiveness in implementing bad policy has been limited so far by his utter incompetence.

Trump’s presidency, at thus juncture, is like the infamous review of a bad restaurant: “The food is terrible, and such small portions!”

That’s a totally unsupported assertion Scotty. She’s a serial liar, frequently for no reason, and as Secretary of State oversaw a failed war in Libya, a disastrous coup in Ukraine, and an attempt to influence the Russian elections she got caught at.

Imagine she was a Republican, would you call here any of those things? You know that you wouldn’t.

“I don’t know about Berkeley, but the city’s Democratic establishment here in Portland has routinely been cracking the heads of the antifas/black-bloc, and the latter have been busy trying to disrupt City Council meetings and other city business.”

Anyway, while I appreciate you perspective on the Trump administration thus far, hindsight is 20/20. To adress my point you have to tell me you can imagine a situation where Clinton screwed up so badly you’d actually think “we’d be better off if Trump was elected” based on what you imagined a Trump presidency would be like prior to the inauguration.

So let’s imagine that Clinton had performed at about the level Trump has. Would that be enough for you to think you voted the wrong way?

But look, conservative Christians, let’s be honest with ourselves: our day is done.

Eh, I’m not so sure. I think social conservatism may even make a comeback. When the family breakdown virus that has ravaged poor black neighborhoods and Appalachia enters Westchester County. That’s when the elites will have to wake up.

Viking: That’s a totally unsupported assertion Scotty. She’s a serial liar, frequently for no reason, and as Secretary of State oversaw a failed war in Libya, a disastrous coup in Ukraine, and an attempt to influence the Russian elections she got caught at.

Your three criticisms, other than possibly “serial liar”, are orthogonal to the question of whether or not Clinton is “mentally stable”, “knowledgeable”, or “intelligent”. That she is both smart and well-read isn’t in dispute. The right-wing media loves to traffic in wild tales about how Hillary is a banshee behind closed doors–but I’ve never seen any of those sorts of things corroborated by any of her critics on the left, who would be in a better position to know (and thoroughly dislike Clinton and have no reason to suppress such things if they were true).

The thing is–being smart and well-read does not guarantee wise policy-making (though being stupid and ignorant is sure to prevent it). Much as been written about the “best and brightest” who got the US into the foreign policy quagmire of Vietnam. A lot, of course, has to do with what master(s) one serves and what goals one seeks–the big story behind Vietnam, I suppose, is that our leadership thought that halting the expansion of Communism was a vital interest that overruled everything else, and was shocked to discover that the South Vietnamese disagreed–as did the domestic population, once the body bags started rolling in.

But citing Hillary’s policy errors (which in fairness, are just as much Obama’s errors if not moreso–he, not she, was President) as proof that she’s ignorant is a category error.

I could imagine a Clinton presidency that might make me long for Trump (or more likely, that might make me long for a sane generic Republican); this is true for any candidate. You give someone that much power, who knows what may happen. In practice, I think a President Hillary would have been given very little room to maneuver, and would have been more ineffective than catastrophic. But as the cat says, nobody is told what might have happened.

Maybe past the sell date, even if you liked that sort of product when it was fresh. I was never a consumer, I admit.

Huma’s leaked emails said she needed extensive hand-held coaching in State, because she was often confused about who she was speaking with and about what.

That fits the email fiasco; more of a person lacking in the faculties to fit the proper means to ends. Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by incompetence.

Corporations dump people after they’re fifty; our sclerotic politics values an elite gerontocracy. If Reagan was way past his prime by his second term, (as even admirers should concede) then why would a sick and tired Hillary be any different?

Interestingly, a younger man in his prime, who now I see in about the same terms Cornel West does, proved to be more prudent in character if lacking in the fortitude to uphold it in the face of the Clinton Money Machine.

Huma’s leaked emails said she needed extensive hand-held coaching in State, because she was often confused about who she was speaking with and about what.

The barber I used to go to in 2008, an old guy nearing retirement who ran a classic corner storefront shop, remarked that if Obama surrounded himself with the right people, he’d do well. Actually, selecting the people to surround himself with was one of President Obama’s worst performances.

To the end, he defended picking Geithner and Summers, chiding those who made it untenable to appoint Summers one more time. And Clinton… Obama admired Lincoln’s Team of Rivals, but he was in a totally different situation. Lincoln was the candidate of a party that had never held the White House or a congressional majority before, an unstable coalition of disparate groups whose commonality was “we have lots of inconsistent reasons for condemning the status quo.” Obama, on the other hand had taken the leadership of a well established (if hardly homogenous) party that badly needing shaking up.

In 2008, Barack Obama was the most credible alternative to a Hillary Clinton candidacy. He had no business giving her a springboard to another (and as we now know, disastrous) run for an office she was never qualified to hold.